(I think “if the contributive axiological value of people is negative, then preferring smaller populations is consistent with—indeed, implied by—totalism in population ethics” is a valid point, and obviously so. It is also mentioned by Spears in the paper I cite above. I therefore find it quite irritating that the parent comment was apparently strongly downvoted. Curious if I’m missing a reason for this?
NB I also think the point is trivial and has an implausible premise, but IMO it is the hallmark of good philosophy that each individual statement seems trivial—e.g., Reasons and Persons features an ample amount of such claims that might strike some readers as trivial or pedantic.)
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.
(I think “if the contributive axiological value of people is negative, then preferring smaller populations is consistent with—indeed, implied by—totalism in population ethics” is a valid point, and obviously so. It is also mentioned by Spears in the paper I cite above. I therefore find it quite irritating that the parent comment was apparently strongly downvoted. Curious if I’m missing a reason for this?
NB I also think the point is trivial and has an implausible premise, but IMO it is the hallmark of good philosophy that each individual statement seems trivial—e.g., Reasons and Persons features an ample amount of such claims that might strike some readers as trivial or pedantic.)
Cf. Russell:
“Trivial, but in a Derek Parfit way” is honestly the highest compliment I could ever receive.